COFFEE & BISCUITS

8:00am. Began the morning with a session titled “Completing an Economics Ph.D in Five Year: Let the Data (Literally) Speak for Themselves.” First a paper that ran regressions to predict the completion of the PhD in 5 years. We have seen these regressions a lot of times…on GRE scores, on whether the program give students shared office spaces in the first year, on the undergrad majors…you know. As these studies go, the one variable that is consistently significant is students going to liberal arts school — those who attend liberal arts schools tend to do best and have the best placement rates. This finding I also personally found true. The few friends I have who went to a liberal arts school seemed to be extremely articulate and educated. There is something about an education that pays loads of education to the needs to every students that overwhelms whatever benefit that large research universities can produce.

Of course the regression results are rather discouraging. Because according to it, I for sure cannot graduate in 5 years (which is indeed true since only 3 out of 23 5th year students in my department is on the job market this year). Fortunately, I do not believe in these regressions — not at all.

The “datapoints” then spoke. They are 4 former PhD students who filled out the surveys for that study (which asked the cohort of PhD Economics students in 2002 to fill them out at the time). One of them is former University of Chicago student. In any case, these students credited relations with advisors, camaraderie with fellow students, luck, creativity and motivation, as the crucial factors.

10:15am This session is titled “Explaining International Trade Patterns.” By far the dominating model underlying each of the 4 paper presented is the Eaton and Kortum paper, EKK (and it’s only 2008!). Melitz to a less extent. My attention was most tuned during the Costas Arkokolis and Muendler paper on extensive margin of exporting good. Their paper’s style is exactly like Kortum (most likely because Arkokolis is Kortum’s former studnet) — facts, model, simulations. A lot of things in it seems to be similar idea as EKK. The discussant is Ruhl, whose paper I also vaguely seemed to remember we have to read in Kortum’s class. If I am not mistaken, he is also his former student. Made some really good points about the big picture: When we study welfare gain, is relocation effect across firms larger than single good per firm case? Some interest questions: do a firm sell 3 products domestically and 10 products abroad? Or does a firm sell 3 products to every destinations? How many HS 4 out of each HS 6 product level does the firm trade? Measure of source of diversity….What kind of goods does the firm trade: are they complements or substitutes?

Another paper presented in this session uses a DSGE model to model the volatility of exports. It takes into account the large fraction of durable goods in the exports to produce that volatility. I seem to remember that there is a paper in asset pricing that heavily relies on that durable component to produce some risk premia? If yes, it is not surprising that this trade paper uses similar argument since the authors are asset pricing people.

Overall, it is a very good session.

(but a person gave out a really loud snore in the middle of the session, so loud that everyone looked)

noon Walked to Chinatown. As I walked, I could barely remember the person I was about 7 years ago, when I was the tourguide in Chinatown. I could not remember any of these streets! At the same time, I remember more and more why I love San Francisco. The wind is so soothing to the skin. In Chinatown, which is on the hill, you can get a glimpse of the pacific ocean, the bay bridge. And the way that Chinatown is built, it has this traditional Chinese feel to it that even Hong Kong or cities in China does not have. It is an immutable feeling. As I walked, I just thought about how influential Amy Tan is. Amy Tan’s San Francisco has somehow imprinted so deep in my impression of the city that I cannot take it away from my head. Whenever I walked on the street of San Francisco, I think about Amy Tan’s stories.

2:15 Amazing. Two large panel session are held at the same time, and both are very important (both have at least 300 audience +). One is on the recent financial crises, with speakers including Ken Rogoff, Robert Shiller, Olivier Blanchard, Alan Blinder. The other is China’s growth experience from the past 30 years, and speakers include Joe Stigliz, Michael Spence, Justin Lin, Marty Fieldstein. Guess which session won? Of course the financial crisis. By winning, I mean garnering the most audience. Since they are such big sessions with such big speakers, they took place in the biggest ballroom in Hilton. 20 minutes before the Financial Crisis panel began, crowds were already pouring into the ballroom. I walked by, and bumped into several PRESS people. But for certain reasons, I had to attend the China panel session (otherwise I would have gone to the financial crisis one too). While in the end, the China session had a full room, it was nowhere as full as the crisis session. In the middle of the China session, I left to go to the crisis session, where I was only able to stand about 10 feet from the door huddled with people, couldn’t even hear the speakers; alas, I had to return to the China session, where I doze off. (until I suddenly saw my name on the screen and heard my name mentioned)

I find this revealed preference of attendants quite paradoxical. Crises is a short term thing, whereas utimately, growth is the most important thing. As I sat in the China session, I couldn’t help but marvel at my choice as well. A couple years ago, I would have gone to the crisis session; but somehow now I have chosen growth.